getTasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (tasks with specific fields) but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated, or what happens with large datasets. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. It efficiently lists the returned fields without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the return details for better clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and return format. However, it lacks completeness in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a tool with multiple sibling alternatives and no annotations to provide safety or operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'section' parameter with its enum values and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get all tasks grouped by file') and specifies the scope ('today + backlog'), which distinguishes it from generic task retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTodayTasks' or 'getBacklog', which appear to offer similar functionality for specific sections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getTodayTasks' or 'getBacklog'. It mentions the grouping by file and the sections covered, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.